# Sealioning **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 16, 2019, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837 "2019-10-16T10:36:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/261 "2019-10-21T01:09:43Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Why won’t you wear red? You claim that you have nothing against red, but your shirts and ties are all blue, those aren’t the actions of someone who doesn’t have anything against red. How can you say that you have nothing against red, when you are obviously biased toward blue? I would wear red. I have worn red. I admit bias towards the color blue. So? > [@](#): > > Using treason to mean “betrayal” is entirely valid. It is in the dictionary and everything. That I am not using treason in the way that you want it to be defined is your problem, not mine Then why not just use “betrayal” instead of “treason”? Does using the word “treason” enhance your argument in any way? Or does it simply inject an emotional facet into your argument? > [@](#): > > What you are looking for here is not someone to explain their opinion, it is to justify their opinion to your satisfaction Not really. I don’t expect people to justify their opinion to my satisfaction. Just enough so I can understand where they are getting their opinion. I rarely, if ever, denigrate someone for their opinion, unless it is just utterly ridiculous like “Don’t talk to women at work so you don’t face a harassment charge” or similar. > [@](#): > > Your guess is not a cite Sorry, it’s my opinion, and I don’t have to provide cites. You aren’t sealioning here are you? > [@](#): > > Right, which is why, when instead of explaining why you agree or disagree why we should betray the Kurds, you instead focus on a single word that was not used in a way that you approve of, you are not contributing to a productive conversation Just use “betray” then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word “treason”. > [@](#): > > Concentration camp is a very accurate term for holding a bunch of people in high density living arrangements. That it has some baggage that it picked up because Nazis used concentration camps is not the fault of someone who accurately describes something happening. Once again, this is an example of objecting to a word or term, not because it is wrong or inaccurate, but only because you don’t like it. This serves only as a distraction from the discussion as to whether or not the detentions are justified and the living conditions are humane It has nothing to do with me “liking it”. There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn’t meet your definition of concentration camp. I still don’t understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject. “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” “Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?” “OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!” “Yeah. I agree” Seems pretty simple to me. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/262 "2019-10-21T05:08:41Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > When you have to explain what your cartoon was supposed to mean, it’s a poor cartoon. I’m not defending the artistic/literary quality of the cartoon. I’m just pointing out that the cartoon’s author has made it unambiguously clear that he intended the other characters’ disparagement of the sealion as a metaphor for criticizing a certain type of asshole **behavior**. Not for any kind of gratuitous abuse or unjustified prejudice against anybody’s “immutable characteristics”. So yes, using the common term “sealioning” to mean a particular form of asshole behavior is the correct interpretation of the cartoon, as opposed to **SlackerInc** ’s willfully ignorant version of it. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/263 "2019-10-21T10:54:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I’m not defending the artistic/literary quality of the cartoon. I’m just pointing out that the cartoon’s author has made it unambiguously clear that he intended the other characters’ disparagement of the sealion as a metaphor for criticizing a certain type of asshole **behavior**. Not for any kind of gratuitous abuse or unjustified prejudice against anybody’s “immutable characteristics”. Yeah, and Chris Rock used to do that bit about how some types of behavior makes you an N-word. Doesn’t change the fact that it actually does refer to immutable characteristics as defined by society. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/264 "2019-10-21T11:42:25Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yeah, and Chris Rock used to do that bit about how some types of behavior makes you an N-word. Doesn’t change the fact that it actually does refer to immutable characteristics as defined by society. Difference being, Chris Rock didn’t \*coin \*the word nigger, so his opinion on whether it’s about behaviour is just his opinion. Whereas Malki very much did \*make \*the comic in question, so what he says about what it refers to is the Word of God. He wasn’t the one who verbed it, though, so its current use is not bound by the cartoon. Informed by, but not bound by. Something some people fail to grasp. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/265 "2019-10-21T12:55:02Z")
The fact that we are arguing about language prescriptivism when it comes to an Internet term is driving me LITERALLY insane. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/266 "2019-10-21T13:09:42Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The fact that we are arguing about language prescriptivism when it comes to an Internet term is driving me LITERALLY insane. I see what you did there. Your mother and I are disappointed. We’re not angry, just profoundly disappointed. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/267 "2019-10-21T15:02:42Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I notice you didn’t quote Riemann who also thought the prohibition on history writing was ridiculous. Try not to be a poor reading comprehension, low IQ, dishonest doofus, Nobody said anything about a prohibition on history writing, you ignorant cretin. The phrase “letting losers write history” doesn’t refer to the losing side being forbidden from ever writing again. It’s a figurative (sorry, is that too many syllables? Try “symbolic”) turn of phrase that has to do with who gets to set the zeitgeist – ie who decides what our cultural perception is. Despite the fact that you refer to Washington as a slaveholding traitor, that’s not how he’s seen by our culture. People like Lee on the other hand are lionized to this day. Why is the winner Washington lionized, the loser King George mocked, and yet the loser Lee is considered a model general and Grant a failure? And here, in a thread about sea lioning, I responded to the biggest pinniped of all. Your username should he Walrus, not Octopus. So joke’s on me – you’ll respond with a snide one liner, or just ignore this post completely. I’ve been burned a dozen times before; why do I keep trying? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/268 "2019-10-21T15:03:27Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Again: the irony here is so thick it would require a jungle machete to hack through. :rolleyes: Right, but not in the way you mean it. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/269 "2019-10-21T16:55:17Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > Right, but not in the way you mean it. He’s very, very good at this. Someone should just bung him into the cartoon instead of the sealion. Has he tried to explain why he’s actually a walrus yet? That’s always good. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/270 "2019-10-21T17:06:57Z")
I can’t wait for “The term is invalid because the drawing looks more like a large seal than a sea lion!” ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2019, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/271 "2019-10-21T21:17:23Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Nobody said anything about a prohibition on history writing, you ignorant cretin. The phrase “letting losers write history” doesn’t refer to the losing side being forbidden from ever writing again. It’s a figurative (sorry, is that too many syllables? Try “symbolic”) turn of phrase that has to do with **who gets to set the zeitgeist – ie who decides what our cultural perception is.** Thank you for catching my drift. Losers don’t usually get to brainwash the winners with their stories… except for slavery and America. Slavers slaughtered in the Alamo are lionized and the anti-slavery Mexicans denigrated. Lionized? Slavery supporters should be sealionized. Please cite authorities showing slavery is good for the slaves. Define “happy slaves”. If slavery is good, you wouldn’t mind being enslaved, right? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/272 "2019-10-22T12:06:28Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Just use “betray” then and it will avoid all the problems associated with the word “treason”. > > It has nothing to do with me “liking it”. There is literally no structure that can be built to hold asylum seekers that doesn’t meet your definition of concentration camp. > > I still don’t understand why people hold so dearly to certain words that others reject. > > “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” > > “Why do you say that? What is treasonous about it?” > > “OK. What we did to the Kurds is a great betrayal!” > > “Yeah. I agree” > > Seems pretty simple to me. If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don’t use the JAQing off\* structure, they just talk: “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” “I’m uncomfortable with the term “treason” there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don’t see it. But it was certainly betrayal!” See, JAQing off isn’t about getting to truth; it’s about scoring points, it’s about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it’s about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it’s common on the internet, so that’s what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for “infiltration points” where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don’t actually care about the discussion. \*I think “JAQing off” is a much better term than “sealioning”. It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/273 "2019-10-22T12:26:13Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Whereas Malki very much did \*make \*the comic in question, so what he says about what it refers to is the Word of God. God’s dead, baby. God’s dead. Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it’s derived from the cartoon. However, I can’t let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn’t the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/274 "2019-10-22T12:34:33Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > See, JAQing off isn’t about getting to truth; it’s about scoring points, it’s about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it’s about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it’s common on the internet, so that’s what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for “infiltration points” where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don’t actually care about the discussion. The way I’ve always heard JAQing Off used goes more like this: “Why did all the Jews pull their money out of the Twin Towers before 9/11? Why didn’t anyone shoot down the passenger planes before they could hit the buildings? Why did Bush stay with the kids instead of going out there and doing something? Why didn’t Bush act more shocked? Why wasn’t there a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon? Why did we only get pieces instead of whole remains?” In short, it’s asking questions in order to inject premises into a debate without having to provide any evidence for those premises. If I ask “Why were you drunk last night?” and you immediately say you haven’t ever been drunk, you look evasive and I can call you on evading the question, even though I never provided any evidence of your drunkenness; the debate is now over whether you dodge questions about your drinking, with the drinking accepted as an implicit premise you can no longer challenge. Conspiracy theorists _love_ JAQing Off because it allows them to deploy talking points and “debate” in a way they think ensures victory. After all, if nobody gives them the answers they want, they’re evading, and therefore dishonest, and if your opponent is dishonest that means you win and are right about everything, and they’re completely wrong. (Note: No it fucking doesn’t.) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/275 "2019-10-22T12:44:58Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > God’s dead, baby. God’s dead. > > Yes, I get that sealioning has a meaning now and it’s derived from the cartoon. However, I can’t let a negation of Death Of The Author slip by. The meaning the word has is due to common usage, not Malki telling us what his cartoon means. Malki gets to have an opinion on that, but it isn’t the final one, any more than Homer gets to have the last word on why Odysseus was like that. Tru dat. **SlackerInc** ’s still wrong though. And you know that if you start talking that Death Of The Author and descriptivist shit he’s going to go down that “then anything means anything and nothing makes any sense so I’m correct and also win !” road. Thanks, _Obama_. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/276 "2019-10-22T12:55:40Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > If someone is sincerely interested in discussion, they don’t use the JAQing off\* structure, they just talk: > > “What we did to the Kurds is treason!” > > “I’m uncomfortable with the term “treason” there; it has a pretty specific legal definition and I don’t see it. But it was certainly betrayal!” > > See, JAQing off isn’t about getting to truth; it’s about scoring points, it’s about trying to be all alpha by putting your self in the law-professor role, it’s about making the other person admit they were wrong. I think a lot of people do it thoughtlessly, because it’s common on the internet, so that’s what they know. But generally speaking, when the JAQing starts, you know the person you are talking to will never be satisfied; they will read everything you write looking for “infiltration points” where they can raise an eyebrow and zing you. They imagine a crowd of lurkers clapping. They don’t actually care about the discussion. > > \*I think “JAQing off” is a much better term than “sealioning”. It perfectly captures the self-indulgent nature of the behavior. Certain words ought to be used precisely. If the so-called nitpicking was on a word like is or what then yes you have a point. But questioning the appropriateness of using a word like treason is perfectly fine. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/277 "2019-10-22T13:12:52Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Certain words ought to be used precisely. If the so-called nitpicking was on a word like is or what then yes you have a point. But questioning the appropriateness of using a word like treason is perfectly fine. Are you agreeing with **Manda Jo**? Because she seems to imply that questioning is fine, and she does it in her example, but the poster should also add some value. So, “I’m uncomfortable with the word treason…but it was certainly betrayal” is a useful post. However, “Treason? What do you mean? Who committed treason?” is not. Especially when the questioner has a specific legalistic meaning in mind (you need an enemy in order to give aid and comfort) and doesn’t even set down the definition they’re using. So, don’t you think **Manda Jo** allows for questioning the definition of, say, treason in her example? And, by adding extra useful commentary (the definition and the “betrayal”) part, that hypothetical poster avoids becoming a sea lion. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/278 "2019-10-22T13:15:09Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Are you agreeing with **Manda Jo**? Because she seems to imply that questioning is fine, and she does it in her example, but the poster should also add some value. So, “I’m uncomfortable with the word treason…but it was certainly betrayal” is a useful post. However, “Treason? What do you mean? Who committed treason?” is not. Especially when the questioner has a specific legalistic meaning in mind (you need an enemy in order to give aid and comfort) and doesn’t even set down the definition they’re using. > > So, don’t you think **Manda Jo** allows for questioning the definition of, say, treason in her example? And, by adding extra useful commentary (the definition and the “betrayal”) part, that hypothetical poster avoids becoming a sea lion. I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/279 "2019-10-22T13:17:41Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I think you are right. I misinterpreted her post. This right here? Warms my heart. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837/280 "2019-10-22T14:50:17Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > This right here? Warms my heart. 🙂 I’d be a lot more impressed if he didn’t ignore my earlier post addressing him. Called it! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sealioning/841837.md?page=15)